Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Defending Free Speech, Weather Permitting...

You know
those friends who are all joy and happiness until trouble comes along? The ones
who are always there to have a good time, and tell jokes, and hang out, and be
merry, right up until the point where they encounter a tiny bit of resistance
or inconvenience? These are known as Fair Weather Friends. The original idiom
was 'S/He is a fair weather sailor'--meaning that as long as there are no
stormy skies or rough seas, this person is an expert over water. Once the chop
agitates and the white horses rear up, however, they crumple, or disappear.

A
surprising amount of people are Fair Weather Sailors across a range of
different issues. People are all on board with stopping animal cruelty, for
example, until it comes time to declare themselves vegetarian. I'm not excluded
from this. I eat meat, I know that the means of acquiring it aren't fantastic,
and yet I can't stop. I'll loudly speak in favour of animal rights but, when
the chips are down, the speed at which I will scoff down scotch fillet is
limited only by the dilation of my throat. I am a fair weather supporter of
animal rights.

There is
one particular issue, however, that seems to attract the most strikingly clueless
fair weather supporter. It's a sneaky one, because a lot of people don't
realise when it is being challenged, or indeed even what it is.

I'm
talking about Freedom of Speech, and specifically the lack of it, in
Australia.

Let's Not Be Too Sensationalist...

I don't
give the media any quarter over their penchant for the sensational, so let me
dial my own back a bit.

Free
Speech doesn't technically exist in this country, it's true. It never
has. At least not in the sense that it exists in the United States. A great
amount of confusion over the issue of free speech stems from the fact that we
are not America, and do not have the same enshrined liberties and freedoms as
the citizens of the US (PRISM notwithstanding). The United States has a Bill of
Rights, which specifically codifies and makes enforceable laws pertaining to
the freedom of expression and speech. Oddly enough, it enshrines that right in
the same breath as it guarantees religious freedom, making for one of the most
spectacular schizophrenic bits of law ever conceived. That, however, is a topic
for another day.

Australia
has no such thing. There is an implied right in the Constitution of this
country that the Parliament may make no law inhibiting political communication.
That's not the same thing. It has to be stated clearly: Freedom of Expression
by the citizenry of Australia is not in any way protected by law.

It's
lucky, then, that it exists by default. It is assumed by lawmakers and nearly
all people living here that a right to free speech exists, even if it isn't
written down somewhere. It's extremely rare that this unspoken principle is
violated. For everything that I'm going to say beyond this point, I want it
known that I am not taking the position that the government of Australia is a
tyrannical, Orwellian juggernaut of suppression. Nor do I think it even
possesses the potential to become one. All in all, we have it pretty good here,
and none of the issues as I see them would be instantly resolved by the
implementation of a Bill of Rights. This is not a lobbying post for that Bill,
so you can take back that sardonic eye roll right now, law and politics
students. I am a font of nuance.

What I am
arguing is that our freedom of speech and expression is being trodden on by
institutions that should not have the right to do so. We have a right to be
angry about that, and we ought to be. Convincing people of this?

That's a
bit of a struggle.

But Mitch, do I even know what freedom of speech is?

No.
Probably not.

In all
honestly, you don't know. You've got a vague idea. Maybe even a really honed
idea. It's still very likely wrong. This is where three quarters of the problem
lies, and it is one of the reasons why the world sorely misses Christopher
Hitchens to sort it out so that nobody else has to. His amazing
scotch-and-cigarette scented breath now spent, however, it falls to the lowly
amoung us to do what we can.

When I
say freedom of speech or expression, I am talking about precisely this and
nothing else:

The Government may not intervene
in matters of communication between two entities unless the content of that
communication is shown to be illegal or directly harmful.

I am not
talking about this, which is the definition that Google throws at you:

The right to express any opinions
without censorship or restraint.

Bugger
that. That isn't correct. Forget everything about that. Freedom of Speech in that
sense can be limited in any number of ways for very legitimate and (mostly)
economic reasons. The disparity between these two definitions accounts for much
of the confusion about what does and does not violate free speech conditions.

I'll show
you.

The Fair Weather Free Speech Brigade

Eddie
McGuire makes a gaffe on air and is threatened with being yanked from radio.
This gaffe is monumentally stupid, even he acknowledges so, and sections of the
community want him off air. The immediate response across the web is as follows
(Verbatim quotes are taken from Facebook, Comments Sections and Blogs that I
won't link to. These people didn't sign up for a pillorying on some silly
blog):

Isn't one of the greatest things
about being an Australian is having Freedom of Speech? Now we can't take the mickey
out of people because they're soft AND we have a Freedom of speech within an
approved shortlist of words....

And...

It was conversation, lighthearted
in its intent, and a consequence of what we used to call free speech. As a
defender of same...

And...

Go after real racism not what
someone perceives is racist.I thought there was free speech in Australia
apparently not.

​

Elsewhere
in Australia, Howard Sattler asks the Prime Minister if her husband is
homosexual on air, making a mockery of her relationship (already the subject of
undue criticism) and offending just about everybody, not the least of which
being male hairdressers who are not gay and gay men who dislike ancient
stereotypes. He was pulled from the air. The only-too-predictable reaction:

Where has free speech gone?
Howard Sattler is a radio DJ, he was interviewing Julia Gillard. If
his question was offensive then she should have just passed on it.

And...

Free Speech in Australia just
died a little more yesterday with Sattler's sacking by 6PR. As the old saying
goes "I may not like what you say, But I'll defend to the death your right
to say it". Australia now a joke of a nation under Gillard, who wants us all
silenced.

And...

It seems like Shakespearean fools
could get away with much more freedom of speech in relation to their rulers,
than was allowed to Howard Sattler in this incident.

What you
are witnessing in each of these cases is a fundamental misunderstanding of what
free speech actually is. It is the confusion of the second definition with the
first. It's the assumption that free speech means getting to say whatever you
want whenever you like, and that everyone else must sit there and remain silent
as you do so.

These
people believe they've identified an injustice. They want to shout from the
rooftops about it. 'This country used to be great, but now I can't even use
racial slurs for fun and I don't know who I am anymore!', is what they're
saying. Some of them will even have the prescience to go high-concept with it.
'I don't agree with what they're saying, but damn it, they have a right to!'.

They have
numbers. They see someone being 'censored'. They think the fight will be easy,
and so they speak up. The weather is fair, my friends, so let's all pile on
while there's no chance of getting wet.

First of all, Free Speech Stops Where Private
Enterprise Begins

Howard
Sattler is sacked from a radio station. Sections of the community campaign to
remove Eddie McGuire. Catherine Deveny is fired from her job over a tweet.

In every
case, these people absolutely had the right to say these things. Nobody took
away their right to say these things.

But they
do not have the right to continued employment in the wake of their
broadcast free speech. That would be up to the employer. And when you impugn
the intimacy of the Prime Minister's bed chamber to her face before an audience
of thousands, you're not likely to have put up a barnstorming case for yourself
as an asset to the radio station.

Private
enterprise may summarily hire and fire you for just about any
non-discriminatory reasons. If you go out and get drunk and disgrace the
company, you're gone. If you say something that offends half the country, also
gone. Companies, businesses and corporations are not bound by the laws of free
speech even if they existed, which they don't.

In most
cases where people are decrying infringement of free speech, there has been no
infringement. They're simply indignant that an offensive opinion has drawn such
a reaction as to unseat someone from their job when they likely share that
opinion. It's really, really easy to defend it when it hasn't even come under
attack.

Second of all, Where the hell were you?

The same
people who will stamp their feet about free speech when it suits them are
deathly silent when there is an actual case of infringement of freedom of
expression. When the police were called to remove Bill Henson's photographs
from an art gallery because they offended some patrons, they were unwilling to
speak in his defence. When a film is banned for having extremely explicit or
controversial content, they are silent.

The skies
are cloudy. The seas are choppy. They don't want to get involved with actual
free expression issues because, damn it, they aren't sick pervs! And only sick
perverts would fight to get a film about Murdersex made available to the
Australian public! Or defend artwork containing images of naked children, no
matter the artist's long history of integrity. In almost every case, this is
how it goes. Content banned for its controversial content doesn't exactly draw
a unified chorus of support from regular folks.

But
that's not all.

Free
Speech isn't so cut and dry as defending avant-garde cinema from the
sensibilities of conservatives. It's also about defending horrid conservatives
from the sensibilities of hypersensitive liberal types.

I'm
imagining a lot of people are with me 100% until I mention that Andrew Bolt has
been unfairly censored by the government. In one of the only
examples of government intervention of free expression of a journalist in this
country, he was found guilty of breaching the racial vilification act, which
includes a clause about causing offense to racial groups.

That
clause should not exist, and I'm happy to throw my support behind Bolt. Bolt,
who I consider one of the worst people to have existed in the media landscape.
Bolt, who I'd love to sit down to a glass of draino with. Bolt, who doesn't
deserve a fraction of sympathy. But, unfortunately, Bolt, who deserves to be
able to publish his views with the permission of his publisher without being
censored by the Government.

The
Government does not have a right to legislate against offense. It doesn't get
to determine what is and isn't appropriate for people to write OR read. As long
as it isn't illegal, it is publishable. The loophole being that the
vilification act is a piece of legislation. A piece of legislation that
oversteps the mark to the detriment of us all, including the racial groups that
it exists to protect.

In any
case, I bring this up because it highlights that you cannot simply be a fair
weather sailor on the other side of the fence. I can't just hang about with my
left wing mates, espouse my hatred of people's misuse of free speech, and then
say 'but because I don't like Andrew Bolt, I'm sure he deserved to be
censored'.

He
didn't. I have to stand apart from popular opinion because I know it isn't
right. I claim the right to say so. You can't stop me. I have an assumed right
to freedom of expression.

A right
that protects me if I decide to launch into a verbal attack on the most
antiquated and draconian of institutions. Which is lucky, because I'm about to
do just that.

All
material made for mass distribution to the public for entertainment purposes
must be classified into one of a few categories: G, PG, M, MA15, R18 and X18 .
These categories are meant to be used as a guideline for parents who wish to
keep mature content away from their children. This is an admirable goal, and I
believe the system is valuable.

But a
loophole exists whereby a film or video game may be 'Refused Classification'.
That is, the content is deemed so wildly inappropriate for people
under the age of 18 that nobody over the age of 18 may purchase it or view it.
A film or game cannot be legally sold or viewed in this country without
classification, so refusing it one is as effective a ban as you can get.

This is
where the front line of free speech infringement is. It's just a shame that
nobody's interested.

As
recently as last week, two video games were refused classification in
Australia, which means they are banned from sale. Adults in this country cannot
purchase Saints
Row 4 and State of Decay, despite the content being
perfectly legal.

A
decision is being unilaterally made for all adults that they are unable to
handle the content of these games. We need not determine for ourselves whether
these games or movies are appropriate for our own personal consumption -- we
have been unburdened of that responsibility.

It is a
responsibility that we did not give away, and it is one that I do not bequeath
to anyone. I do not give the Australian Classification Board permission to
rule on what is fit for my precious eyes and ears. That's the end of
it, right there - if it isn't illegal, I get to make the choice.

Except
that I don't, because now possessing one of these games or viewing one of these
films is a crime. Even if it's just me. On my own.

I'll
rephrase: the content of these games and films is not illegal, but the
government has declared that no Australian citizen may view or obtain them.

It is a
textbook infringement of freedom of expression, and nobody cares .

So? They're Just Video Games

Oh, you
did not just think that.

If you
did, then you're such a fair weather supporter of free speech you're at risk of
getting skin cancer. If your mind instantly wandered here, then you aren't just
part of the problem. You are the actual problem. You can't just
pick and choose which aspects of life free expression applies to and which
aspects it does not. It's not in your interests, and by that I mean your
personal interests. You have a personal stake in Saints Row IV, and I'll tell
you how.

If you
don't want to identify and speak out against the free expression violation made
against Saints Row IV, you are tacitly in favour of censorship. That might be
fine while it's just these two games and a couple of movies that you've never
heard of, but that's an horrifically short sighted way to look at things.

What
about in future, when the censors come to get their hands on something of
yours? What are you going to say when they arrive to take it away? You already
let them have Saints Row IV. You agreed that they are the ones who get to make
the decision about what is appropriate for everyone , including
you. Once you've agreed to that, how do you go about taking that responsibility
back if you feel the censors have overstepped the mark?

Who are
you going to look to for help? If you don't care about video games or films,
who do you imagine is going to care about your niche *thing*, whatever it
happens to be? Maybe you're a religious person, and the censors are coming to
tell you that your holy book offends too many people and must be removed. Maybe
you have an alternative point of view about a mainstream issue, and you are
being utterly silenced by a government department that won't tolerate anything
but the national narrative. Whatever it happens to be, how on earth are you
going to convince people that it matters? They sure as hell didn't have a
problem with the Saints Row IV thing.

It's just
you, fighting a battle all on your own, trying to have your tiny point of view
heard amongst a sea of louder, more indignant voices who just do not understand.

Well,
maybe not just you. I'm there, too. Hi. We're suddenly the best of friends, eh?

Defending Free Speech, Weather Permitting

How did
it get to the stage that free speech is a catch-cry only of the casual racist
and the irate shock jock? How did it become that free speech is so ill-defined
by most people that it is almost universally misunderstood? Why do people only
want to talk about this kind of thing when a newspaper confuses threats on its
market share with the fundamental right of all human beings to communicate
without government interference?

We have a nation of fair weather free speech crusaders, and that should worry
us all. These people cannot be relied on to defend free speech in the event
that it actually comes under threat. They're likely not to even notice when it
comes under threat.

I don't know what can be done about it, either. I'd argue for better education
and a heightened national awareness of what it means to have freedom of
expression, but that will not happen. People don't care. The weather's either so
fair that they aren't required to do anything, or so turbulent that they
dare not do anything.

All I can do is ask the fair weather defenders where the hell they were when I
wrote this post. The next time I see someone screeching that they can't slander
all homosexuals and 'whatever happened to free speech', I'll ask them what they
thought of the Saints Row IV debacle. Or if they were outraged about Ken
Park.

If you take nothing else from this post, try this: Free Speech is yours.
You own it. It cannot be taken from you by the government, that is the nature
of it. When someone does attempt to take it away from you, you can and should
get angry about that. When someone attempts to take it away from someone else,
even if you are in no way affected, you should feel equally as outraged. Even
if it isn't your cup of tea. Even if it makes you ill. Even if you abjectly
oppose the speech being suppressed.